The Retina display is gorgeous, but comes with compromises.

When the 15" Retina MacBook Pro hit store shelves this past summer, MacBook Air owners hugged their slim, lightweight laptops tightly while looking longingly at the beautiful display of the larger machines. "If only Apple would release a smaller laptop with a retina display," they wished. It took a few months, but it's here: a 13" version of its Retina MacBook Pro offering a relatively lightweight, "pro" oriented laptop in a smaller form factor. Having spent a good amount of time with the 15" Retina MacBook Pro this past summer, we wanted to get a feel for what the smaller size could offer.

For the past several days, I have switched from my usual 11" MacBook Air to using the 13" Retina MacBook Pro for all my daily work. The experience isn't far off from using the 15" model—the battery life easily bests the MacBook Air and the screen is crisp and clear. Performance is in-line with what we expected, given the dual-core Ivy Bridge processors. And the thinner aluminum unibody is solid despite the thinner profile compared to the older MacBook Pro design.

Still, while the 13" Retina MacBook Pro offers an overall great package, the pricing and performance compromises compared to its larger 15" sibling left me wanting. Here's why.

Design

Enlarge/ A stack of MacBooks, with a 15" Retina MacBook Pro on the bottom, a 13" Retina MacBook Pro in the middle, and an 11" MacBook Air on top.

Chris Foresman

The 13" Retina MacBook Pro is essentially a smaller version of the 15" Retina MacBook Pro that Apple released in June. It has the same unibody construction, the same port layout, the same backlit chiclet-style keyboard, and the same ultra-thin display module construction—it even has the same series of three vents along the bottom left and right edges.

Enlarge/ On the left side, the 13" Retina MacBook Pro has a MagSafe 2 connector, two Thunderbolt ports, a USB 3.0 port, and an audio out jack.

Chris Foresman

Enlarge/ On the right side, there's an SD card slot, an HDMI port, and another USB 3.0 port.

Chris Foresman

The 13" model is noticeably smaller than the 15" model at 12.35×8.62 inches, but is the same (0.75 inches) thickness—that's about 23 percent smaller than the 15" model. It weighs 3.57 pounds, nearly a pound less than the 15" model. It's also a pound lighter than the "old" 13" MacBook Pro design, which Apple still offers as a cheaper alternative to the Retina MacBook Pro.

Enlarge/ The hidden heating vents on the bottom of the 13" Retina MacBook Pro.

Chris Foresman

Whereas the 15" Retina MacBook Pro is a little unwieldy for heavy mobile use, the 13" model is far more manageable. It's more comfortable on a lap, easier to fit into a bag or briefcase, and a little easier on your back or shoulder while toting.

It falls short of ultra-portable territory, though. The 13" MacBook Air is still slimmer with its tapered design, and saves over half a pound in weight at 2.96 pounds. (The 11" MacBook Air is smaller still, and weighs less than 2.4 pounds.)

The overall aesthetic is exactly what you have come to expect from Apple design chief Jony Ive: clean, spartan, and understated.

Internals

Enlarge/ The inside of the 13" Retina MacBook Pro. Note the two fans connected to the processor by heat pipes, and the SSD module tucked in underneath the trackpad.

Similar to the 15" model, the 13" Retina MacBook Pro has a small logic board, asymmetrical battery design, and dual asymmetric fan design. Apart from size, the biggest difference between the 15" and 13" models are CPU and graphics. The smaller model is limited to dual-core processors and lacks a discrete graphics chip—just like previous 13" MacBook Pros. Older MacBook Pros had severely limited internal space because of the included optical drive, but the 13" Retina MacBook Pro looks to have room on the logic board for a discrete GPU. (There may be other considerations for Apple—cooling and product differentiation come to mind.)

The other difference is that the SSD—or, flash storage module in Apple parlance—is tucked under the trackpad. According to iFixit, there is enough space under the trackpad for a slim 2.5" SSD, so it may be possible to replace the SSD with something a bit more off-the-shelf in the future. However, Apple is clearly leveraging economies of scale and using the same modules that ship in the 15" Retina MacBook Pro. (They are also used in Fusion Drive-equipped iMacs.)

The base model 13" Retina MacBook Pro comes with a dual-core 2.5GHz Core i5 processor. The processor has Intel's Hyper-Threading, so OS X sees the equivalent of four cores it can send active processing threads to. It can dynamically boost its frequency up to 3.1GHz when running a single core thanks to "Turbo Boost," and has 3MB of L3 cache. You can optionally configure 13" models with a dual-core 2.9GHz Core i7 chip, which boosts up to 3.6GHz and has 4MB of L3 cache.

(For more on the differences between Intel's Core i5 and Core i7 mobile processors, read Andrew Cunningham's recent article on the benefits of processor upgrades.)

The base model also comes with a paltry 128GB SSD, which we consider a bare minimum for many users. If you plan on storing any kind of sizable iTunes and/or iPhoto libraries, for instance, you're going to want more storage. If you spend much time working with video, you'll also likely need an upgrade (or carry around dedicated external storage). Models can be configured with 256, 512, or 768GB SSDs, though Apple offers a $1,999 model with a 256GB SSD standard.

8GB of RAM is soldered to the logic board. Unlike the 15" model, you can't order it with more RAM; it's 8GB, and that's that. At least Apple didn't skimp on RAM and make you pay extra to have it soldered on at the factory. The "old" MacBook Pro comes with just 4GB by default, although it has two standard slots which can both be fitted with aftermarket 8GB RAM sticks for a total of 16GB.

As mentioned above, there's no discrete GPU, so you get Intel's HD4000 integrated graphics. Fortunately, the HD4000 is pretty capable for most uses, as we discovered when reviewing the 15" Retina MacBook Pro.

Nicely done review. I'd lean more to the 15" rMBP for the oomph you get from its GPU, mainly, but honestly at this point I think my next purchase is going to be one of the larger 15" MBP models with an optical drive. The money saved, plus the ability to upgrade things on my own later on, swing the decision in that direction for me.

Looking forward to the future of computing when all screens are as nice as these retina ones, though.

I think it's clear that buyers of these first gen RETINA laptops are paying a hefty premium for the privilege. A $500 price difference for a modest one pound reduction and RETINA is a lot, and also considering one has to add another $250 for Apple care - we are talking almost DOUBLE the price of a regular 13' Macbook pro. As stated, $500 can kit out a regular 13' Macbook to the gills, giving much more storage and memory, and connectivity...yet not RETINA. Of course, a year from now, RETINA will be much cheaper. Want to be a bleeding edge Apple user? You must pay for it.

I think it's clear that buyers of these first gen RETINA laptops are paying a hefty premium for the privilege. A $500 price difference for a modest one pound reduction and RETINA is a lot, and also considering one has to add another $250 for Apple care - we are talking almost DOUBLE the price of a regular 13' Macbook pro. As stated, $500 can kit out a regular 13' Macbook to the gills, giving much more storage and memory, and connectivity...yet not RETINA. Of course, a year from now, RETINA will be much cheaper. Want to be a bleeding edge Apple user? You must pay for it.

Of course. It seems pretty clear that Apple is having trouble making these retina class screens in sizes larger than the iPad. So supply is initially low, which means the price will be high. It also seems pretty clear that retina is a future priority for Apple, so we can expect that three years from now it will probably be standard on all Macs, iOS devices, and any PCs that aren't on the really low end. I'm looking forward to it- after a long wait we will finally have screens that are as good as printed material. Now if only they could make them look good outside in natural light...

HyperThreading is SO overhyped. It's not at all like "having 4 cores". Four cores can give you 50%-80% more performance on average, because you actually have twice as many cores to use. Hyperthreading on the other hand can only squeeze 5%-15% more performance on average out of the existing 2 cores - and that's of course only for multi-threaded apps.

Well, this is disappointing. I said in an earlier post, when the 13" rMBP was announced, that it would replace the mid-2008 13" model I have now. Now that a few reviews have come out of the 13" model, all of them roughly saying similar things. The 15" model looks like it'll be the next buy.

It took 3 versions of the iPad for competitors to even start getting close and even now they still can't compete on apps or general fit and finish of the product. Now, also in a vacuum, Apple gets to enjoy a pricing premium with latop Retina display.

It's not like tablets or Retina display were a huge secret, why can't other competitors (wasn't ASUS talking smack? Doesn't Samsung hate Apple enough by now and they can even build the screens...? Isn't Sony all about Sony style? Isn't Dell... oh wait, Dell is garbage, lol) get it in gear. They just let School seasons and Christmas roll by several times before they get going, I don't get it. What do they talk about in their meetings?

I think it's clear that buyers of these first gen RETINA laptops are paying a hefty premium for the privilege. A $500 price difference for a modest one pound reduction and RETINA is a lot, and also considering one has to add another $250 for Apple care - we are talking almost DOUBLE the price of a regular 13' Macbook pro. As stated, $500 can kit out a regular 13' Macbook to the gills, giving much more storage and memory, and connectivity...yet not RETINA. Of course, a year from now, RETINA will be much cheaper. Want to be a bleeding edge Apple user? You must pay for it.

Actually, the premium for the Retina display is not that much when you consider that Retina models also come with SSD and more RAM. A comparably equipped non-Retina 13" MBP is only $200 less than the base Retina model. When it comes to the 15" model, if you outfit a base non-Retina with 8 GB of RAM and the 256 GB SSD drive that are standard on the base Retina, it actually costs $200 MORE.

With the 15" model, choosing the Retina is a no brainer in my opinion. It's not so clear cut with the 13" model though.

You mention the "Retina (Best)" setting is equivalent to 1280x800 pixel display, but your image shows "Best (Retina)" looking like 1440x900. Which one is the default visual experience?

Also, since you mention 1024x640, 1280x800, 1440x900, 1680x1050, and a "non-Retina setting" that I assume would be 2560x1600 (double the actual "Best (Retina)" size). That leaves five options, but the image shows four options (Larger Text, Best (Retina), ---------, and More Space).

Just asking for clarification, thanks!

Edit: Saw that you clarified the native resolution isn't possible from the GUI. What is this referring to then: "OS X actually creates a desktop four times as large as the chosen setting, and then scales everything down"?

$1,700 for a dual core machine with integrated graphics and only 128GB storage is hard to justify, even if it does have an Apple logo. for the price, quad core, dedicated graphics and double the storage would have made this a no brainier, IMHO.

Actually, the premium for the Retina display is not that much when you consider that Retina models also come with SSD and more RAM.

256GB SSDs are $150 retail, and RAM is cheap. I just put 32GB in my desktop for $108. I can't sell my two 4GB sticks from my 2011 17" MBP upgrade to 16GB for $25 on Craigslist. And we all know Apple can put the squeeze on a supplier.

It took 3 versions of the iPad for competitors to even start getting close and even now they still can't compete on apps or general fit and finish of the product. Now, also in a vacuum, Apple gets to enjoy a pricing premium with latop Retina display.

It's not like tablets or Retina display were a huge secret, why can't other competitors (wasn't ASUS talking smack? Doesn't Samsung hate Apple enough by now and they can even build the screens...? Isn't Sony all about Sony style? Isn't Dell... oh wait, Dell is garbage, lol) get it in gear. They just let School seasons and Christmas roll by several times before they get going, I don't get it. What do they talk about in their meetings?

A 1280x800 effective screen dual core IGP laptop for $1700 or 2000?

Supply. Apple likely bought up all retina-ish screens at the 13" and 15". Making the bigger retina displays is more expensive and harder, so less yield. Overall display resolutions seem to be trending up, ASUS, Sony and Dell all offer 11.6" - 12.5" laptops with 1080p screens. 189 and 176 ppi respectively. Last year that would have been unheard of. Once the supply gets better for the larger screens everybody will have one too.

Can someone please make a Wintel laptop with 15" Pro specs! I'll be all over it in a heartbeat and I'm sure there will be many more. I'm still clinging to my 10" tablet PC from 2003 and jelously eying all these gorgeous Mac laptops.

Just a quick question about pixel doubling. In order to keep the physical size of assets on-screen equivalent to 1280x800, whatever's responsible under the covers for drawing things like windows or text is just making them twice as "big" in pixel terms - is that what is meant by pixel doubling? If so, this presumably carries a sharpness advantage because the underlying graphics stuff which is drawing these windows is able to draw smoother curves by utilising a greater number of smaller pixels. In other words, it works because it's rendering the content on screen itself, rather than drawing on assets stored as images on disk.

But isn't it the case that the actual resolution of the display is still 2560x1600? So what happens with things like icons associated with installed programs, or indeed assets embedded in web pages? in 1280x800 scale, does it pixel double those too? Presumably it has to in order to maintain the scale of text/layout in relation to image assets. If this is true, these bits will look precisely the same as on a 1280x800 display won't they?

Secondly, what happens when you choose a "scale" which isn't a factor of the native res? Do you get jaggies/interpolation artefacts? Or does it just not let you?

Not trying to be snarky, just curious. The only thing i don't like about this high res display push is the implications for gaming performance, where perhaps, in a fast moving racing or action game, especially on a smallish screen, you wouldn't see much of a quality difference between 1080p and 1600p, but you'd take a big performance hit.

$1,700 for a dual core machine with integrated graphics and only 128GB storage is hard to justify, even if it does have an Apple logo. for the price, quad core, dedicated graphics and double the storage would have made this a no brainier, IMHO.

You're buying it for the screen and the weight, as well as the build quality associated with that logo. Or you aren't

The perspective of this review is really confused. I thought based on the opening paragraphs that Chris Foresman had positioned it as a review of the 13" retina model from the viewpoint of Macbook Air users yet most of the review criticizes the 13" model because it doesn't offer the flexibility and feature of its 15" sibling. I don't disagree with the remarks about the 13" versus 15" but it seems like despite being a 11" Macbook Air user, Chris Foresman's true object of affection is a 15" Macbook Pro retina and I think it skews the conclusion. Criticizing the 13" model because it doesn't offer the "value" of the 15" model is of no use to a Macbook Air user who probably went with the Air because of its size and portability and isn't any more likely to pick a 15" notebook, no matter its value for money, than he or she is going to go with a desktop. I'd have liked to see a review that matched the promise of the opening paragraph - a review of the 13" retina for Macbook Air users rather than desktop or large notebook users.

Can someone please make a Wintel laptop with 15" Pro specs! I'll be all over it in a heartbeat and I'm sure there will be many more. I'm still clinging to my 10" tablet PC from 2003 and jelously eying all these gorgeous Mac laptops.

Well, you could just buy a 15" rMBP and install Windows on it. You wouldn't be the first!

So what happens with things like icons associated with installed programs, or indeed assets embedded in web pages? in 1280x800 scale, does it pixel double those too? Presumably it has to in order to maintain the scale of text/layout in relation to image assets. If this is true, these bits will look precisely the same as on a 1280x800 display won't they?

Short answer: "Yes."

When Retina hardware meets a non-Retina asset, it pixel-doubles that piece (each source pixel gets rendered on 2x2 physical pixels.) Otherwise, it can use Retina assets pixel-for-pixel, and Retina apps ship two sets of images: one for standard and one for Retina. Non-Retina apps on Retina hardware still render text at Retina scale, regardless of the images.

There's some Webkit-specific CSS that would allow the Web to provide Retina assets to Retina displays, but at least on my iPod Touch, nobody seems to bother.

Can someone please make a Wintel laptop with 15" Pro specs! I'll be all over it in a heartbeat and I'm sure there will be many more. I'm still clinging to my 10" tablet PC from 2003 and jelously eying all these gorgeous Mac laptops.

The price reflects the early adopter tax. Also, the transition to a different class of display has large start up costs associated with it. The question for me remains, as the retina class displays take over, are they necessary at all.

Just a quick question about pixel doubling. In order to keep the physical size of assets on-screen equivalent to 1280x800, whatever's responsible under the covers for drawing things like windows or text is just making them twice as "big" in pixel terms - is that what is meant by pixel doubling? If so, this presumably carries a sharpness advantage because the underlying graphics stuff which is drawing these windows is able to draw smoother curves by utilising a greater number of smaller pixels. In other words, it works because it's rendering the content on screen itself, rather than drawing on assets stored as images on disk.

But isn't it the case that the actual resolution of the display is still 2560x1600? So what happens with things like icons associated with installed programs, or indeed assets embedded in web pages? in 1280x800 scale, does it pixel double those too? Presumably it has to in order to maintain the scale of text/layout in relation to image assets. If this is true, these bits will look precisely the same as on a 1280x800 display won't they?

Secondly, what happens when you choose a "scale" which isn't a factor of the native res? Do you get jaggies/interpolation artefacts? Or does it just not let you?

Not trying to be snarky, just curious. The only thing i don't like about this high res display push is the implications for gaming performance, where perhaps, in a fast moving racing or action game, especially on a smallish screen, you wouldn't see much of a quality difference between 1080p and 1600p, but you'd take a big performance hit.

Let's see if I can sort this out for you. OS X has two ways to send data to displays: standard, and "HiDPI." The Retina MacBook Pros are configured to only ever use "HiDPI" modes. These have an effective display real estate of half the linear resolution of what the screen actually displays, and OS X "doubles" the pixels it uses to draw everything, thereby making everything much smoother and, if the resolution is high enough, sharper.

The "standard" resolutions work just like they would on a standard display: if the resolution is a non-integral of the actual resolution, there's a lot of anti-aliasing. Now, because the Retina display is well over 200ppi, you don't notice this anti-aliasing at many of the resolutions, but crank it low enough and you will notice it.

By default, the Displays preference panel only lets you choose 4 resolutions, and they all look pretty good (though the "Larger Text" option isn't all that sharp for obvious reasons). Start setting resolutions outside of those four, and obviously Apple makes no warranties.

how many websites are Retina-ready or do you still end up viewing the web with standard resolutions?

Graphics on 99.999% of sites end up looking pretty poor. Text and other glyphs looks great, though. Probably not a horrible trade-off, since I spend more time reading than anything, but still noteworthy.

how many websites are Retina-ready or do you still end up viewing the web with standard resolutions?

There aren't that many, so I tend not to notice. But when a website is set up to serve "Retina" quality assets, it REALLY pops out. Apple.com is probably the most prominent. However, Wordpress has been adding in native Retina graphics support, so sites that use Wordpress.com I think automatically get support now, and sites that use their own install of Wordpress can get support via a plug-in now.

There's a lot of issues to sort out WRT creating, storing, and serving the images, so that's why not everyone is rushing out to do it just yet. The nice thing is that anything done with text, CSS, or SVG is already "Retina"-ready.

The price premium for the retina model isn't actually as much as it seems because it also comes with a 128 GB SSD and 8 GB RAM; a non-retina model with the same specs only costs $200 less. Granted, you can't downgrade those options on the retina model, so yes, the base price is $500 higher – but it isn't just for the retina display.

I'd have a hard time choosing between the two, honestly. On the one hand, buying something new without a retina display seems nuts; on the other hand, you have to settle for 1/4 the storage capacity. If it were a 256 GB SSD I would almost certainly spring for the retina model, but 128 is tiny...

When Retina hardware meets a non-Retina asset, it pixel-doubles that piece (each source pixel gets rendered on 2x2 physical pixels.) Otherwise, it can use Retina assets pixel-for-pixel, and Retina apps ship two sets of images: one for standard and one for Retina. Non-Retina apps on Retina hardware still render text at Retina scale, regardless of the images.

There's some Webkit-specific CSS that would allow the Web to provide Retina assets to Retina displays, but at least on my iPod Touch, nobody seems to bother.

Thanks, blueshifter.

I assume the display zoom setting in Windows 7, and the old DPI setting in Windows XP (and before?) work in a similar same way. I suppose the reason it doesn't work the other way around - apps/web pages offer up the higher resolution option for sub-sampling - is concerns over performance/bandwidth/disk space (i'm assuming pixel doubling is far less computationally expensive than something like bicubic resampling). Though that said, all this implies all apple display resolutions are connected by factors of two? Forgive the stupid question - I'm not that well up on the specifics of apple hardware.